ArticleTomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.)2018
Brain Tumor Characterization Using Multibiometric Evaluation of MRI.
Article in Tomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.), 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Congress of neurological surgeons systematic review and evidence-based guidelines for the role of imaging in newly diagnosed WHO grade II diffuse glioma in adults: update.Journal of neuro-oncology · 2025Pooled it
- Performance of machine learning algorithms for glioma segmentation of brain MRI: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis.European radiology · 2021Pooled it
- Cerebral and tumoral blood flow in adult gliomas: a systematic review of results from magnetic resonance imaging.The British journal of radiology · 2021Pooled it
- Are there reliable multiparametric MRI criteria for differential diagnosis between intracranial meningiomas and solitary intracranial dural metastases?Oncology letters · 2023Article
- Fractal dimension: analyzing its potential as a neuroimaging biomarker for brain tumor diagnosis using machine learning.Frontiers in physiology · 2023Article
- Applications of Artificial Intelligence Based on Medical Imaging in Glioma: Current State and Future Challenges.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Review
- Advanced multiparametric MRI-based scoring for isocitrate dehydrogenase mutation prediction of gliomas.Polish journal of radiology · 2022Article
- Main genetic differences in high-grade gliomas may present different MR imaging and MR spectroscopy correlates.European radiology · 2021Article
- MultivoxelTomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.) · 2018Article
- Automated brain tumor identification using magnetic resonance imaging: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Neuro-oncology advancesArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
The aim was to evaluate volume, diffusion, and perfusion metrics for better presurgical differentiation between high-grade gliomas (HGG), low-grade gliomas (LGG), and metastases (MET). For this retrospective study, 43 patients with histologically verified intracranial HGG (n = 18), LGG (n = 10), and MET (n = 15) were chosen. Preoperative magnetic resonance data included pre- and post-gadolinium contrast-enhanced T1-weighted fluid-attenuated inversion recover, cerebral blood flow (CBF), cerebral blood volume (CBV), fractional anisotropy, and apparent diffusion coefficient maps used for quantification of magnetic resonance biometrics by manual delineation of regions of interest. A binary logistic regression model was applied for multiparametric analysis and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis. Statistically significant differences were found for normalized-ADC-tumor (nADC-T), normalized-CBF-tumor (nCBF-T), normalized-CBV-tumor (nCBV-T), and normalized-CBF-edema (nCBF-E) between LGG and HGG, and when these metrics were combined, HGG could be distinguished from LGG with a sensitivity and specificity of 100%. The only metric to distinguish HGG from MET was the normalized-ADC-E with a sensitivity of 68.8% and a specificity of 80%. LGG can be distinguished from MET by combining edema volume (Vol-E), Vol-E/tumor volume (Vol-T), nADC-T, nCBF-T, nCBV-T, and nADC-E with a sensitivity of 93.3% and a specificity of 100%. The present study confirms the usability of a multibiometric approach including volume, perfusion, and diffusion metrics in differentially diagnosing brain tumors in preoperative patients and adds to the growing body of evidence in the clinical field in need of validation and standardization.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.